ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2014
Comparison of the GenoType(®) MTBC Molecular Genetic Assay with culture methods in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of metagenomic next-generation sequencing technology, culture and GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay in the diagnosis of tuberculosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the RT-LAMP and LAMP methods for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical samples from 433 patients pre-diagnosed with tuberculosis in Konya, Turkey, were investigated prospectively to compare the GenoType(®) MTBC test (GenoType(®) MTBC) with conventional "gold standard" culture methods. MATERIAL AND
methodsLowenstein Jensen (LJ) and Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT)-960 culture methods and GenoType(®) MTBC were performed together.
resultsMycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) detection rates were 16.2% by culture methods, 15.4% by GenoType(®) MTBC, and 6% by acid-fast bacilli microscopy. The LJ or MGIT-960 with GenoType(®) MTBC detected M. tuberculosis in 12 samples each that were negative according to the other culture method alone. Among 70 M. tuberculosis-positive samples, detection rates were 37% (26/70) by microscopy and 82.8% (58/70) by LJ and MGIT-960, but 95.7% (67/70) by GenoType(®) MTBC.
conclusionsGenoType(®) MTBC may be used as a beneficial adjunct test to culture methods for the detection of M. tuberculosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.